ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026
Defining advocacy in public health: a scoping review to inform policy, training, and equity-oriented action.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvocacy is widely recognized as a catalyst for equity in health, yet its conceptual foundations, operational forms, and evaluative criteria remain fragmented. In health systems, advocacy is expected to amplify marginalized voices, address structural determinants, and promote participatory governance, but there is limited consensus on its definition and implementation. This scoping review systematically maps how advocacy has been conceptualized, practiced, and evaluated across public health and healthcare domains in democratic societies, with particular attention to its role in advancing equity.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review across four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL) including peerreviewed literature from health, legal, political, and social domains. Eligible studies explicitly addressed advocacy in health and care contexts, providing conceptual definitions, theoretical frameworks, or descriptions of practice, education, and evaluation. Thematic synthesis was applied to identify recurrent dimensions, strategies, and values.
resultsA total of 146 documents were included. Advocacy was consistently framed as a deliberate, value-driven practice oriented toward systemic change, social justice, and equity, despite considerable conceptual and operational variability. Applications spanned clinical care, public health promotion, community mobilization, and policy reform. Relational and communicative skills were widely emphasized as enabling factors, but evaluation remained limited: only 6 studies (4%) reported the use of specific measurement instruments, none of which were standardized. From this synthesis, we developed a preliminary blueprint for equity-oriented public health advocacy, structured around six components: normative grounding; multilevel orientation; relational and communicative practices; critical and systemic literacy; reflexive professionalism and civic agency; and evaluation and accountability mechanisms.
conclusionsAdvocacy emerges as both a professional competency and a civic practice essential for equity-driven health systems. This review provides a conceptual foundation and a translational framework to guide integration of advocacy into policy, training, and practice. Sustained collaboration between academia, civil society, and health systems is required to institutionalise advocacy as a driver of just and inclusive health governance. REGISTRATION: OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MEJHX
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.